Understanding the 2025-2026 Grand Jury Reports

Behind the Devastation: Tuolumne County Community Development Department Community Development Department Findings

[Note: Engage Tuolumne reprinted “Staffing Findings” from the Grand Jury Report, along with County responses, in its September 4 newsletter. The entire CDD report can be found here.]

Findings & Recommendations

The Civil Grand Jury reviewed documentation, correspondence, public records, and other relevant materials supporting the following Findings and Recommendations, which are offered to strengthen administrative oversight, improve public confidence, and enhance consistency in County permitting, enforcement, and inter-agency coordination practices.

[Note: For those Grand Jury recommendations with a specific date, the County’s response includes the following statement: “The Grand Jury has no authority to order and mandate deadlines as that invades the discretionary decision-making of the legislative branch.”]

Community Development Department

Finding 6: CDD maintained a practice of applying unwritten “Tuolumne County” requirements in addition to formally adopted State codes and regulations, despite those local requirements not being formally codified or publicly adopted through the required legislative process. This practice contributed to project delays, increased costs, and frustration among applicants and contractors, and created a perception of inconsistency and inefficiency within the permitting process.

Response to Finding 6: The County PARTIALLY AGREES and PARTIALLY DISAGREES with Finding 6.

The County PARTIALLY AGREES that certain past CDD practices were unsatisfactory and created frustration for applicants.

The County OTHERWISE DISAGREES because the finding describes past practices as though they remain current practice and fails to account for changed procedures. The report alleges that CDD applied unwritten “Tuolumne County” requirements beyond formally adopted codes, causing delays, costs, and public frustration. Current County practice is to base plan review and permitting decisions on applicable adopted requirements and to move away from informal or unwritten review expectations.

Recommendation 6-1.

The Board of Supervisors and CDD should ensure that all plan review and permitting decisions are based solely on formally adopted State and local codes; any additional local requirements should be clearly documented, formally adopted, and publicly accessible by September 1, 2026.

Response to Recommendation 6-1. This recommendation HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED.

The County and CDD have changed practices so that permitting and plan-review decisions are based on formally adopted State and local codes, with any additional local requirements to be documented, adopted, and made publicly accessible as appropriate. Implementation does not constitute complete agreement with Finding 6.

Finding 7: CDD routinely fails to rely on the expertise of engineers preparing plan documents and does not always accept plans when there is the presence of an engineer’s professional stamp on submitted plans.

Response to Finding 7: The County DISAGREES wholly with Finding 7.

The report asserts that CDD routinely fails to rely on engineers’ expertise and does not always accept plans because they bear a professional engineer’s stamp. The County rejects the premise that a professional stamp eliminates the County’s obligation to conduct code review. A stamped plan may be entitled to professional respect, but it is not a command that CDD approve the submission without review. The finding improperly equates appropriate plan review with disregard for engineering expertise.

Recommendation 7.

The Board of Supervisors and CDD should establish and adhere to clear guidelines for plan review involving professionally prepared and stamped engineering documents. Such guidelines should define the respective roles and responsibilities of design professionals and plan reviewers, while ensuring compliance with adopted codes by September 1 , 2026.

Response to Recommendation 7. This recommendation HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED.

The County and CDD has long-standing and established guidelines for plan review involving professionally prepared and stamped engineering documents. To say that this recommendation has been Implemented does not constitute agreement that CDD has failed to respect engineers or has improperly rejected stamped plans.

Finding 8: CDD frequently provided applicants with incremental or successive correction notices during the plan review and permitting process whereby additional corrections or new requirements were often issued that had not been identified during prior reviews even after applicants had corrected identified deficiencies and resubmitted revised materials. This practice contributed to project delays, increased costs, and frustration among applicants and contractors, and created a perception of inconsistency and inefficiency within the permitting process.

Response to Finding 8: The County PARTIALLY AGREES and PARTIALLY DISAGREES with Finding 8.

The County PARTIALLY AGREES that certain past practices involving correction comments and review cycles were unsatisfactory. The County OTHERWISE DISAGREES because those practices have changed, and the finding fails to distinguish between past conditions and current procedures. The report alleges that CDD frequently issued incremental or successive correction notices, contributing to delays, costs, and frustration. The County has moved toward more complete, consistent, and transparent review practices.

Recommendation 8.

By October 1, 2026, the CDD should evaluate and improve its plan review and permitting procedures to promote greater consistency, completeness, and accuracy in applicant feedback. The CDD should make reasonable efforts to identify and communicate all known deficiencies and required corrections during the initial review stages in order to minimize repeated correction cycles, reduce unnecessary delays, and improve transparency and customer service throughout the permitting process.

Response to Recommendation 8. This recommendation HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED.

CDD has evaluated and improved plan-review and permitting procedures to promote greater consistency, completeness, and accuracy in applicant feedback. CDD will continue making reasonable efforts to identify known deficiencies during initial review stages, but implementation does not mean every issue can or should be identified in a single review cycle.

Finding 9: CDD has demonstrated inconsistent enforcement of ordinance code and their level of flexibility for remediation of issues.

Response to Finding 9: The County DISAGREES wholly with Finding 9.

The report asserts that CDD has demonstrated inconsistent ordinance-code enforcement and inconsistent flexibility for remediation. The County rejects that broad accusation. Enforcement discretion is not the same as inconsistent enforcement. Different facts, different violation histories, different safety concems, and different remediation efforts may justify different enforcement responses.

Recommendation 9-1.

The Grand Jury encourages CDD to maintain a cooperative, professional, and educational approach when addressing unintentional failures by community members to comply with building codes and permitting requirements. At the same time, by October 1, 2026, CDD should review and, if necessary, strengthen enforcement policies related to Ordinance 1.10 governing unpermitted work and code compliance as they apply to repeat offenders, including contractors and property owners with documented patterns of noncompliance.

Response to Recommendation 9-1. This recommendation WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED because it is not warranted as framed.

The County supports cooperative and professional code-compliance practices, but it rejects the recommendation’s premise that current enforcement policies must be strengthened in response to a demonstrated pattern of inconsistent treatment.

Note: The Grand Jury has no authority to order and mandate deadlines as that invades the discretionary decision-making of the legislative branch.

Recommendation 9-2.

By October 1, 2026, the County should implement consistent tracking, documentation, and reporting mechanisms to identify recurring violations and ensure that proportionate, progressive enforcement actions are applied fairly and uniformly. These measures would promote voluntary compliance, strengthen accountability, and improve public confidence in the integrity and consistency of the County’s permitting and enforcement processes.

Response to Recommendation 9-2. This recommendation WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED because it is not warranted as framed.

The recommendation presumes a tracking and reporting deficiency that the County does not accept. The County may continue to improve documentation practices, but it will not adopt corrective measures premised on an unsupported finding of inconsistent enforcement.

Review Tim McCaffrey’s perspective on this issue in his blog: Our Tuolumne